McKenzie

[Tatonka]

a guy that would be a good back up if he gets healthy.

8 sacks 3 years in a row, and on pace in 2001 prior to injury.

bounced around last year with injuries..

he may be nice for spot duty, which is what he got when he got his first 2 seasons of 8 sacks.

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3932

[Tatonka]

i have heard surprisingly little about his recovery.. if he is not 100%, he will be a training camp cut.

[WG]

...and played like crap in '02.

Who knows. There's no more reason to get optimistic about this guy than there is about Kelsay, Grant, Irons, or Jones. The bottom line is that we'll be lucky to have above average play at that DE position this season, probably will get stuck w/ average play.

I still think that Kenny Peterson would have been nice to have.

[WG]

Kenny Peterson: 6'3"/298/4.8

Positives: Relentless, has a very quick get-off and shows explosive quickness off the ball shooting to inside gaps. Has good awareness and football intelligence. Makes good use of his hands. Pursues well laterally and can change directions quickly and close fast. Agile, athletic player who rotates throughout the game. Has big upside and potential. Plays hard and disruptive and uses leverage in bull rush. Good athlete, explosive pass-rusher and playmaker. Very strong for his size. Can play inside.

Negatives: Lacks size and butt to be an interior lineman. Has the production of a part-time player. Plays hard and has real talent, but the enigma is that production doesn't match.

Summary: Talented tweener who seems to be putting it all together. Very talented, athletic player who has shown flashes of greatness.

That still seems better to me than Kelsay a whole round earlier!

Kelsay: 6'4"/273/4.72

Positives: Has good but not great quickness and quick-twitch off the ball. Is quick with his hands and reacts well to blocks, plays with leverage and uses his hands to gain position. Is very intense and competitive on the field, in the classroom and in the weight room. Refuses to stay blocked. Has a good array of pass-rush moves, including club, swim and counter. Has the closing burst and acceleration once he gets into the backfield. Character and intelligence are plusses. Has a 361-inch vertical. Is a worker and competitor in the Grant Wistrom mold and has improved every season. Added nearly 20 pounds between spring '02 and Scouting Combine.

Negatives: Lacks size and will get engulfed by bigger offensive tackles. Relies heavily on his speed. Is not as agile as teams want in a speed-rushing defensive end. Has a recent injury history. Is strong but must get much stronger.

Summary: Though his ability to play the run has improved, Kelsay doesn't show the ability to consistently beat superior competition. His lunch-pail approach makes him a top prospect, but he may not be drafted until the second round because of his measurables.

Peterson is larger, can play both DT and DE, is essentially as quick, and doesn't have this knock of "not consistently being able to beat superior competition!"

[Tatonka]

i can give you the same write up for kelsay wys.. perterson dropped like a rock in the draft.. he is too SLOW to play DE.. and to light to play DT..

[Tatonka]

sometimes i think you pull names out of a hat just to name someone we didnt get that you made no mention of pre draft..

you were not a henderson or peterson guy prior to the draft..

and have you seen petersons stats from last season? he was not that good.. there is a reason he fell all the way down, and a reason we traded the pick to greenbay in the THIRD round while he was sitting right there for us.

[WG]

So says who?

It's the things that can't be taught that I'm lookin' at. If we relied on every person writing a piece as to a rank of players making it in the NFL and not, then the Terrell Davis' of the world never would have amounted to anything.

I'm tellin' ya, when ya read something like he "struggles against superior competition", it ain't good for the NFL. I have no idea how this guy was a projected first round pick under the circumstances that they have him listed. As well, often, as is usually the case, preconceived notions often help a player.

I discount the "rankings" other than for what it specifically says about a player. Things that cannot be taught or worked on should be valued more highly.

The only thing about Peterson, and by your own admission in that last post, and that was a negative is something that's easily corrected especially for players coming out of college! Size! That can be worked on by diet and working out.

Whereas things such as w/ Kelsay, "not consistently beating superior competition", why? Also, when you put on 20 lbs. and now weigh only ~ 270, then unless you have top quickness and speed, which apparently he doesn't, size can very quickly turn into an issue. W/ Peterson, he adds 10 lbs. and he can play DT. Heck, most of what we had last year weighed less than Peterson! But w/ Kelsay, speed isn't something that's easily worked on and improved. Generally you either have it or don't. If you're a smallish DE, then speed is your bread and butter. At least w/ Peterson, again, w/ very comparable speed, his getting to 310 wouldn't be unfathomable!

I just think Peterson may have been the answer for us, particularly a round later over a player that we really didn't need and for sure over a player a whole round earlier where we could have drafted equal +/- and taken another more needed player in round 2.

But, we'll see. I'm sure Peterson will get a shot to do something this year, so we'll see who performs better, is more versatile, and who would have been a better pick.

[mypoorfriendme]

i think youre quoting the sporting new's scouting report with those analyzations of kelsay and peterson. just remember, this is coming from the same magazine that had rien long going seventh overall. as far as the bills' picks go, they had angelo crowell giong in the third and haggan going in the fourth. not to mention sobieski not even top 30 in his position and mcgee 31 best at corner. basically, not a very reliable source is what im trying to say. OH! and last year they said mckinnie was "by far the best tackle in the draft"........yet we pick williams and the draft analysts said 9 out of 10 coaches ranked williams over mckinnie. speaking of that, who do you guys with we should have gotten??

[WG]

Originally posted by Tatonka
sometimes i think you pull names out of a hat just to name someone we didnt get that you made no mention of pre draft..

you were not a henderson or peterson guy prior to the draft..

and have you seen petersons stats from last season? he was not that good.. there is a reason he fell all the way down, and a reason we traded the pick to greenbay in the THIRD round while he was sitting right there for us.

I wasn't much of anything prior to the draft other than knowing about maybe the first handful of picks in our most needed postions. I can tell you that Peterson and Rien Long later were both on my mind. So would have Henderson have been had I known that he would have been around at 23. I figured he'd have been scooped up.

I thought we should have taken a DE, DT, LB, WR, and/or OL in the first 3 or 4 rounds. We got a DE, but I just don't like the guy based on what I've read. What, are you saying you watched all what, 13 of Nebraska's games this year religiously and know that Kelsay is an animal?

I didn't see one game w/ him. BUT, if we could get our hands on the stats for Nebraska's games against the only two final top 25 teams that they played, I'd be all ears! The Huskers only played final 6th ranked Kansas State and gave up 49 and 15th ranked PSU and gave up 40. So those couldn't have been really big defensive games!

Their bowl game wasn't even against a ranked team! So if I'm skeptical, there's a reason. Just b/c I didn't post all of my guesses, prognostications, and wish lists prior to the draft, doesn't mean I was out in the dark and completely uninformed.

I just think that a guy like Peterson, and frankly, I don't see how anyone can argue this point, but I just think that he would have been more versatile when that's essentially what we need. As well, I see him as having a greater upside just as those who wrote the piece do.

But I'm sure you'll dismiss what PFW says in favor of what a bunch of totally biased fans who want TD to look like some sort of genious would say. That makes an awful lot of sense too!

[WG]

Originally posted by mypoorfriendme
i think youre quoting the sporting new's scouting report with those analyzations of kelsay and peterson. just remember, this is coming from the same magazine that had rien long going seventh overall. as far as the bills' picks go, they had angelo crowell giong in the third and haggan going in the fourth. not to mention sobieski not even top 30 in his position and mcgee 31 best at corner. basically, not a very reliable source is what im trying to say. OH! and last year they said mckinnie was "by far the best tackle in the draft"........yet we pick williams and the draft analysts said 9 out of 10 coaches ranked williams over mckinnie. speaking of that, who do you guys with we should have gotten??

Sure! And we're talking about a GM who traded up last year in the 2nd to get a player who wasn't on anyone's list prior to 3rd, and in most cases 4th or 5th, simply b/c what, b/c Pittsburgh was rumored to have wanted Denney? Boy! What a move. If anyone truly thinks that Denney, even now, was a bonafide selection, then they're naive. Sure, he's got this season, but I doubt he'd be getting as much attention from the coaches as he is if he were a 4th or 5th rounder.

BTW, last year, the only pick I criticized was the Denney pick, that's it.

This year I don't particularly care for our entire draft. But we'll see, if McGahee gets what we want out of him or he fetches us at least another first rounder, then the pick will have been worth while. If Kelsay plays better than Peterson, that simply, then he'll have been a better selection. If Crowell plays better than Peterson or Rien Long, then he'll have been a good pick.

We'll see. Not much use in arguing now, but judging by those who know the game better than I do regarding college talent, it appears to me at least, that Peterson was A. far less risky and B. was about the same as Kelsay at least w/ more size.

[WG]

poor,

BTW, I was on a crusade last year telling everyone that McKinnie was not only overrated, but that he wasn't really that good. Anyone honest enough who was here then will admit that. In fact, I said that based on several games that I saw him in. He was not good at all. I never saw what all that hype over McKinnie was about, never!

And as far as Kelsay goes, why couldn't the same be true? That he was overrated by many?

I'm not saying that he won't amount to much, but I sure wouldn't have taken him in the first two rounds, I would have taken Peterson first. But no matter how you slice it, I would have taken Peterson in the 3rd before I would have traded to G.B. Couldn't have gone wrong w/ that. Unless Crowell becomes some sort of monster, which I just don't see given his size, then I think that would have been a smart move.

As to Kelsay, while I didn't see a game of his, as I'm sure few Bills fans did considering that they played a very weak schedule, but the only two teams that Nebraska played that ended up in the top 25 were KSU and PSU and they gave up a combined 89 points to those two teams. So unless Kelsay was the team's only decent defensive player, where was the D? What did Kelsay do in those games? I would imagine that if he had been some sort of force, then those teams wouldn't have blown Nebraska out to the tune of 89 combined points, eh!

[mypoorfriendme]

to clear things up, i wasnt trying to justify the bills picks by quoting the sporting news. im criticizing the sporting news because obviously they dont really know what theyre talking about. obviously williams was better than mckinnie because if he wasnt, why would we have picked williams. id be willing to bet the ranch that the bills front office or any FO for that matter knows a whole helluvalot more than any magazine. theres a reason we got kelsay in front of peterson and theres a reason why we got crowell instead of long. maybe if we wouldhave known peterson would be available in the third, we would have gotten a reciever or te in the second which i think is the wholes we need to fill right now, or even a o-linemen. bottom line, im going to trust donahoe and the bills staff on what they did. well see a few years from now how everyones developed in the pro-game. its way too early to rate or criticize the effectiveness or success of this draft.

[mypoorfriendme]

oh and to refute what you said about mckinnie being over-rated, you cant really argue the fact that through out all of his short high school career and entire college career, he did not give up ONE SINGLE SACK. i didnt see him much this season, but i did see williams giving up sacks to db's lined up at the DE position when we played the pats. BUT what do i know, im just a kid. im giong to close my eyes and convince myself "donahoes a genious...donahoes a genious...."

[Tatonka]

wys.. look at petersons stats.. i guess they cant teach performance either.. at least at his school..

you are condeming a guy in kelsay because you read in one scouting report that he struggles against tough competition... lets just wait to see them on the field..

we dont need another DT at this point.. but YOU stated that we should have grabbed peterson to play DE... not DT.. and he is too slow to play it in the nfl..

[BillsMan80]

Actually, you are wrong about Denney. After workouts and such, many draftniks rated Denney up in the 2nd Round and I heard rumors of him possibly going in the first. McKenzie will be a very good pickup if he is healthy.